Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
> wrote:
>
> > If I understand you correctly, we actually already have the mechanics
> > for this in place. Most sites like Yahoo! allow you to whitelist a
> > sender.
"You" here is the individual Yahoo! use
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> If I understand you correctly, we actually already have the mechanics
> for this in place. Most sites like Yahoo! allow you to whitelist a
> sender. This could be extended to allow whitelisting based on the RFC
> 2369 List-Post field
On 6/4/14, 11:39 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Richard Damon writes:
>
> > There are some domains (like banks but NOT Yahoo and AOL) whose email is
> > important to verify identity of sender, who should have some form of
> > certificate that shows they have been verified by a trusted 3rd part
Richard Damon writes:
> There are some domains (like banks but NOT Yahoo and AOL) whose email is
> important to verify identity of sender, who should have some form of
> certificate that shows they have been verified by a trusted 3rd party
> (like Https certs). The 3rd party verification keeps
On 6/4/14, 4:23 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
>
> > We didn't intend for this to be used by MUAs, however, so to some degree
> > they're doing what we expected.
>
> I know, but I think it's time for the IETF to recognize that email
> fraud cannot be fought if the re
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
> We didn't intend for this to be used by MUAs, however, so to some degree
> they're doing what we expected.
I know, but I think it's time for the IETF to recognize that email
fraud cannot be fought if the receiving end of "end-to-end" doesn't go
all the way through
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
wrote:
> Also, the last time partial signatures came up, it was pointed out
> that there are *no* MUAs that differentiate between signed parts and
> unsigned parts. You don't get a warning when your eyes move from a
> signed part to an unsigne
Murray S. Kucherawy:
And along those lines, do any MUAs do useful things with the various List-*
fields, other than permitting one to sort on them?
Hello,
I think, that is the real problem: There are RFCs 2369 and 2919 and
virtually no MUA
implement them *usefull*.
I do sort my inbound m
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
> What's the expertise on the idea of adding footers in a new MIME text/plain
> part rather than just bolting it onto the text as-is? (Or is that already
> done?) What do MUAs generally do with multipart text/plain bodies?
As Mark and Barry point out, the MUAs-for
On 05/30/2014 10:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> What's the expertise on the idea of adding footers in a new MIME text/plain
> part rather than just bolting it onto the text as-is? (Or is that already
> done?) What do MUAs generally do with multipart text/plain bodies?
This is what Mailm
I'm really sorry I haven't had time to catch up on the various DMARC threads,
but I'm hoping to do so early next week.
On May 30, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>What's the expertise on the idea of adding footers in a new MIME text/plain
>part rather than just bolting it onto the t
Right now list footers are a common feature of Mailman and other MLMs. The
typical way of doing this is to just append some content, probably after
"--", that indicates the location of archives and maybe some administrative
information (unsubscribe instructions, for example).
What's the expertise
12 matches
Mail list logo
